M/S. Laxmi Ganesh Kirana And General Stores vs. The Appellate Authority
Held
The Court held that an order passed in discharge of statutory duties, which requires a signature by the authority, is no order in the eye of law if it is not signed. The Court found itself in agreement with the view expressed by the Coordinate Bench in a similar case. Consequently, the writ petition was allowed, and the impugned order of the 1st respondent dated 27.06.2023 was set aside. The Court clarified that this order would not preclude the respondents from proceeding in accordance with the law. No order as to costs was made. The issue of the validity of an unsigned order was decided in favor of the petitioner.
Facts
The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging an order passed by the 1st respondent, an authority under the GST regime. The petitioner's primary contention was that the impugned order was not signed by the issuing authority, rendering it invalid. This issue was stated to be covered by a previous ruling of a Coordinate Bench in W.P.No.2830 of 2023. The respondents, represented by the Government Pleader, argued that an inadvertent error should not nullify the proceedings and that the petitioner's prayer for the proceedings to be returned as inequitable should be rejected. The impugned order in this petition is dated 27.06.2023.
Key Issues
1. Whether an order passed in discharge of statutory duties under GST law is valid in the absence of a signature from the issuing authority? 2. Whether the impugned order dated 27.06.2023, which is allegedly not signed, is liable to be set aside? The petitioner argued that the absence of a signature on the impugned order renders it invalid, relying on a prior ruling by a Coordinate Bench in W.P.No.2830 of 2023. The petitioner contended that an unsigned order is no order in the eye of law. The respondents argued that an inadvertent error, such as a missing signature, should not be a ground to nullify the entire proceedings and that the relief sought by the petitioner should be rejected.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.NARENDAR AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY
WRIT PETITION NO.33211 of 2023
ORDER:- (per Hon’ble Sri Justice G.Narendar)
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned G.P.(CT-I) Sri T.C.D.Sekhar for the respondents.
The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, would at the very outset point out that the impugned proceedings/order has not been signed by the authority while passing the order and that the said issue is covered by the ruling of the Coordinate Bench rendered in W.P.No.2830 of 2023 which was disposed on 14.02.2023. 3. The Learned Government Pleader for Commercial Tax would try to support the same by contending that an inadvertent error cannot be a ground to nullify the entire proceedings that the prayer of the petitioner is that the proceedings should be returned being inequitable and hence, he would submit that the relief sought for, be rejected.
It appears that the earlier order of the Coordinate Bench revolves around a similar issue and the Coordinate Bench has taken a view, that the matter requires to be
2 relegated to the authorities for conclusion in accordan
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Andhra Pradesh High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.